When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
69 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
yonason
15 years ago
The Left howls and rages about everything and nothing, and when they find a small, and as Mike’s America says, tangential distraction to focus, they latch on with a vengeance. Whenever they do that, it is important to remember that for every little error we make, they are virtually ALWAYS wrong. We feel bad when we are, and try to correct it. They are offended when caught, and try to cover it up. That’s the difference.
Why do they do it? To creat a smoke screen to discredit opponents and distract the public from their own more serious faults.
What can we do? Strive for accuracy, and work to put them on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive ourselves, which always makes a person look guilty, and they know that which is why they are constantly making accusations, most of which are false and/or grossly exaggerated.
One way we can make a difference is to know, and show others, what they really mean when they use their seemingly positive vocabulary of magic words and phrases…
Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.
Now, I could be politically correct and say they are “truth challenged,” or I could be honest and say “they are a bunch of (expletive almost not deleted) bald faced liars.” Sure, there are times to be tactful and diplomatic, but with them falsely accusing us of lying, it is time to respond as clearly, directly and forcefull as possible.
Yonason: We do have to try harder to be accurate. We don’t have a willfully ignorant “news” media to gleefully report our misinformation. Besides, we do care about being correct. That never gets in the way of Dems.
Good find on Speaking Democrat. Here’s the text from the chart:
“Speaking Democrat:” A Primer
Speaking “Local Democrat”
“PROGRESSIVE” = “REGRESSIVE”
“Democrats are progressive.”
Translation: “Democrats are regressive.”
“CHANGE” = “THE 1970s”
“Democrats will bring you change.”
Translation: “Democrats will bring you the 1970s.”
“GOVERNMENT” = “SOCIALISM”
“Democrats support proactive government.”
Translation: “Democrats support proactive socialism.”
“ENHANCE REVENUES” = “RAISE TAXES”
“Democrats will enhance revenues.”
Translation: “Democrats will raise taxes.”
“THE RICH” = “YOU”
“Democrats will only tax the rich.”
Translation: “Democrats will only tax you.”
“INVEST” = “WASTE”
“Democrats will invest your money.”
Translation: “Democrats will waste your money.”
“ENERGY” = “LETHARGY”
“Democrats have an energy policy.”
Translation: “Democrats have a lethargy policy.”
“GREEN COLLAR JOBS” = “UNEMPLOYMENT”
“Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with green collar jobs.”
Translation: “Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with unemployment.”
Speaking “Global Democrat”
“DIPLOMACY” = “MAGIC”
“Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled diplomacy.”
Translation: “Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled magic.”
“ENGAGE” = “APPEASE”
“Democrats will engage America’ enemies.”
Translation: “Democrats will appease America’s enemies.”
“END” = “LOSE”
“Democrats will end the Iraq War.”
Translation: “Democrats will lose the Iraq War.”
Contextually Construing “Electoral Democrat”
(i.e. Walking the Party Plank)
“As a progressive party, Democrats will bring you change by using government to enhance revenues from the rich to invest in the production of energy and green collar jobs; and by using diplomacy to engage America’s enemies and end the Iraq War.”
Translation: “As a regressive party, Democrats will bring you the 1970s by using socialism to raise taxes from you to waste in the production of lethargy and unemployment; and by using magic to appease America’s enemies and lose the Iraq War.”
yonason
15 years ago
NICE!
Arthurstone
15 years ago
yonason analyzed:
Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.
‘Code’ is so interesting. Just finished Rick Perlstein’s ‘Nixonland’ and one of the ways the Republicans ‘encoded’ their message was by use of phrases like ‘Southern Strategy’ and ‘states rights’ to disguise their intent of gutting Civil Rights legislation and appeasing Southern segregationists.
I got the Youtube fo that speech, but I can not getto youtube at work. I will post it when I get home. Great speech
yonason
15 years ago
Arthurstone (#50), … DELUDED IDIOT, OR LYING WEASLE?
In 1969, despite civil rights reforms like the landmark decision declaring that segregated schools where unconstitutional, the 1964 Civil Rights bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many African Americans lived without the full protection of the law, equal access to public facilities, or equal economic opportunity. Nixon viewed this situation as not only unfair to African Americans, but as a waste of valuable human resources which could help the nation grow.
Among the most pressing civil rights issues was desegregation of public schools. Nixon inherited a nation in which Nixon inherited a nation in which nearly 70% of the black children in the South attended all-black schools. He had supported civil rights both as a senator and as vice president under Eisenhower, but now, mindful of the Southern vote, he petitioned the courts on behalf of school districts seeking to delay busing. Meanwhile, he offered a practical New Federalist alternative — locally controlled desegregation.
Despite the opposition of many men in his administration, Nixon increased the number of female appointments to administration positions. He created a Presidential Task Force on Women’s Rights. He asked the Justice Department to bring sex discrimination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And he ordered the Labor Department to add sex discrimination provisions to the guidelines for its Office of Federal Contract Compliance.
While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower’s success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.
There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth.
Arthurstone
15 years ago
Yonason typed:
There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth!
Yet another interesting point to consider is how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th – 21st century incarnation.
I certainly appreciate your efforts (just kidding) but this is a little more on the mark:
…how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th – 21st century incarnation — Arthurstone
And those refs., he gives are excellent illustrations of how that happened! (Racist Dems jumping ship to become rinos in order to support someone because of his seemingly racist opposition to the racist aspects of affirmative action. Once inside they could try to turn that opposition into a vehicle for their own really racist agenda – not the “mark” he means, I’m sure).
Nothing was more problematic than the civil rights issue — particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed most forms of racial discrimination. Goldwater was no racist; early in his career as a Phoenix city council member, he aggressively supported local civil rights ordinances. But as his conservatism deepened, he grew first skeptical and then fearful about the use of government for social engineering. “You cannot pass a law that will make me like you — or you like me,” Goldwater told one rally. “That is something that can only happen in our hearts.” He understood, too, that government-mandated affirmative action was merely the flip side of segregationist racialism: “It reintroduces through the back door the very principle of allocation by race that makes compulsory segregation morally wrong and offensive to freedom.” [his opposition to the social engineering is what the cross-over supporters were attracted to, NOT any racism on his part] And, that, to Barry Goldwater, was the bottom line. “Our aim, as I understand it, is neither to establish a segregated society nor to establish an integrated society,” he said. “It is to preserve a free society.”
Goldwater was privately appalled to discover that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act rallied to his side not only libertarians but racists who detested and feared not state power but black people. He was horrified when Alabama’s racist Gov. George Wallace offered to switch parties and run as his vice president. Goldwater eventually became so paranoid about the influx of racists to his campaign that he worried that a summer riot in Harlem had been secretly instigated by his supporters in hopes of generating a white backlash vote.
Lightweight ?? Let me ask you something do you think that would be the type of insult that an Einstein would use ? And as far as the Republicans were the best in promoting civil rights for Blacks perhaps we should remember that at time both parties had both conservative and liberal wings. The conservatives of BOTH PARTIES were against the passage of the Civil Rights act while the liberals of both parties were for it. When it came time to renew it in 2006 it was on much more of a party line vote I believe all or nearly all who voted against it were Republican.
And it is NOT because Democrats were for Civil Rights
Arthurstone
15 years ago
Mike typed:
“Yonason: Notice how Artie is trying to distract us again from the subject of the post?”
yonason typed: Yes. I was going to bring that up if he posted off-topic again.
C’mon guys. Read the thread. The post I responded to from yonason had nary a word about ‘oil’, ‘gasoline’ or ‘drilling’. And in fact I actually quoted from your post which would, to a reasonable person, disqualify me from distracting you from your post. Got that?
And of course Mike is always eager to pile on and would never let a fact get in the way of his flights of rhetoric.
Cheers.
yonason
15 years ago
“The post I responded to from yonason had nary a word about ‘oil’, ‘gasoline’ or ‘drilling’.
Like my folks always said, “Close the door, your letting the flies in!”
But, actually, my comment was on topic, which was the attempt to invalidate America’s need to drill because “the Chinese aren’t drilling.” I didn’t say it explicitly, but that was clearly enough what it was about.
Then Stoner comes along and injects Racism totally out of the blue. So, yes, that was off topic, and I took the bait. My bad! But flies are so annoying that one can’t help but swat at them when they get in the way.
skunknuts
13 years ago
Wow, what a fun article to read in the midst of the tragedy in the gulf. The quotes of renowned expert Sarah Palin just puts this over the top. Thanks for the laugh, it is a nice break as I watch an entire section of our country get devastated thanks to conservative sponsored corporate greed.
How silly those dirty environmentalists were for questioning big oil’s safety claims! 🙄
The Left howls and rages about everything and nothing, and when they find a small, and as Mike’s America says, tangential distraction to focus, they latch on with a vengeance. Whenever they do that, it is important to remember that for every little error we make, they are virtually ALWAYS wrong. We feel bad when we are, and try to correct it. They are offended when caught, and try to cover it up. That’s the difference.
Why do they do it? To creat a smoke screen to discredit opponents and distract the public from their own more serious faults.
What can we do? Strive for accuracy, and work to put them on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive ourselves, which always makes a person look guilty, and they know that which is why they are constantly making accusations, most of which are false and/or grossly exaggerated.
One way we can make a difference is to know, and show others, what they really mean when they use their seemingly positive vocabulary of magic words and phrases…
Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.
Now, I could be politically correct and say they are “truth challenged,” or I could be honest and say “they are a bunch of (expletive almost not deleted) bald faced liars.” Sure, there are times to be tactful and diplomatic, but with them falsely accusing us of lying, it is time to respond as clearly, directly and forcefull as possible.
Yonason: We do have to try harder to be accurate. We don’t have a willfully ignorant “news” media to gleefully report our misinformation. Besides, we do care about being correct. That never gets in the way of Dems.
Good find on Speaking Democrat. Here’s the text from the chart:
NICE!
yonason analyzed:
Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.
‘Code’ is so interesting. Just finished Rick Perlstein’s ‘Nixonland’ and one of the ways the Republicans ‘encoded’ their message was by use of phrases like ‘Southern Strategy’ and ‘states rights’ to disguise their intent of gutting Civil Rights legislation and appeasing Southern segregationists.
Go figure.
The more things change…
I got the Youtube fo that speech, but I can not getto youtube at work. I will post it when I get home. Great speech
Arthurstone (#50), … DELUDED IDIOT, OR LYING WEASLE?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_domestic.html
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/008949.html
It was Democrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth.
Yonason typed:
There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth!
Yet another interesting point to consider is how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th – 21st century incarnation.
I certainly appreciate your efforts (just kidding) but this is a little more on the mark:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/index.html
or this:
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2007/12/rick-perlstei-1.html
…how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th – 21st century incarnation — Arthurstone
And those refs., he gives are excellent illustrations of how that happened! (Racist Dems jumping ship to become rinos in order to support someone because of his seemingly racist opposition to the racist aspects of affirmative action. Once inside they could try to turn that opposition into a vehicle for their own really racist agenda – not the “mark” he means, I’m sure).
And many Blacks also know that Goldwater was no racist.
Here is the video of the Speech of how to translate Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EcQ03qRE1s
Yeah… those Dems sure do have a good record on civil rights:
Yonason: Notice how Artie is trying to distract us again from the subject of the post?
This is the second such attempt today.
I guess they don’t like having their big lie exposed.
As for your question: “Arthurstone (#50), … DELUDED IDIOT, OR LYING WEASLE?”
I think he’s both.
“Yonason: Notice how Artie is trying to distract us again from the subject of the post?”
Yes. I was going to bring that up if he posted off-topic again.
And, yeah, “all of the above” seems like the correct answer to me, too.
Lightweight ?? Let me ask you something do you think that would be the type of insult that an Einstein would use ? And as far as the Republicans were the best in promoting civil rights for Blacks perhaps we should remember that at time both parties had both conservative and liberal wings. The conservatives of BOTH PARTIES were against the passage of the Civil Rights act while the liberals of both parties were for it. When it came time to renew it in 2006 it was on much more of a party line vote I believe all or nearly all who voted against it were Republican.
There was a darned good reason Martin Luther King was a Republican.
And it is NOT because Democrats were for Civil Rights
Mike typed:
“Yonason: Notice how Artie is trying to distract us again from the subject of the post?”
yonason typed: Yes. I was going to bring that up if he posted off-topic again.
C’mon guys. Read the thread. The post I responded to from yonason had nary a word about ‘oil’, ‘gasoline’ or ‘drilling’. And in fact I actually quoted from your post which would, to a reasonable person, disqualify me from distracting you from your post. Got that?
And of course Mike is always eager to pile on and would never let a fact get in the way of his flights of rhetoric.
Cheers.
“The post I responded to from yonason had nary a word about ‘oil’, ‘gasoline’ or ‘drilling’.
Like my folks always said, “Close the door, your letting the flies in!”
But, actually, my comment was on topic, which was the attempt to invalidate America’s need to drill because “the Chinese aren’t drilling.” I didn’t say it explicitly, but that was clearly enough what it was about.
Then Stoner comes along and injects Racism totally out of the blue. So, yes, that was off topic, and I took the bait. My bad! But flies are so annoying that one can’t help but swat at them when they get in the way.
Wow, what a fun article to read in the midst of the tragedy in the gulf. The quotes of renowned expert Sarah Palin just puts this over the top. Thanks for the laugh, it is a nice break as I watch an entire section of our country get devastated thanks to conservative sponsored corporate greed.
How silly those dirty environmentalists were for questioning big oil’s safety claims! 🙄
@skunknuts:
Have some more fun:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24moratorium.html?pagewanted=2